This is an AAO appeal decision — a case denied once and appealed. It shows how the framework is applied; it is not the filing population.
The Petitioner, holding a foreign bachelor's degree in philology and claiming managerial experience, sought EB-2 classification and a national interest waiver based on exceptional ability or advanced-degree equivalency, with an asserted future benefit in transportation management.
Field: transportation management / philology (linguistics) · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
The Director never determined whether the Petitioner's occupation qualifies as a profession, whether his foreign bachelor's diploma is equivalent to a U.S. baccalaureate, or whether his employment reflects five years of progressive specialty experience; AAO remanded for this determination rather than finding failure.
How the evidence was treated
- resume experience · discounted
“no evidence in the form of letters from current or former employer(s) showing that the alien has at least five years of progressive post-baccalaureate experience”
AAO decision text - degree · credited
This record is one of thousands, each coded for the reasons it turned. A placement shows where your profile sits in that record, not what it predicts. See where your profile sits — 90 seconds →
Notable
The AAO remanded because the Director never resolved the threshold advanced-degree/professional-occupation question and failed to apply the Dhanasar three-prong framework at all, instead erroneously conflating denial of exceptional-ability classification with automatic denial of the NIW as a matter of discretion. No prong analysis occurred; the case turns entirely on procedural/adjudicative deficiency by the Director rather than substantive prong failure.
Authorities this decision leans on
From the doctrinal survivor set — 187 authority tests across 47 distinct authorities cleared the differential-lift gates. Only those appear here.
- 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(2)
- 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(3)(ii)
- INA 203(b)(2)
- Poursina v. USCIS
What this case teaches
Analyst reading of the decision text.
Director failed to first resolve advanced-degree/professional eligibility and never properly applied the Dhanasar three-prong framework before denying on discretionary grounds, requiring remand.
Ensure adjudicator (and petitioner's brief) sequentially establishes underlying EB-2 classification before addressing NIW prongs, and requests explicit Dhanasar analysis to avoid remand for procedural gaps.
vague
other
person_focused
Cases in adjacent profiles
- The Petitioner, a mechanical engineer, proposed to advance thermal management solutions for high-power, compact, and rel
- The Petitioner, a senior engineering program manager specializing in electromechanical systems, proposed to advance moto
- The Petitioner proposed to provide innovative solutions to optimize freight and vessel operations in the U.S. shipping i
- The Petitioner, a sales manager, proposed an endeavor in the United States for which he sought an EB-2 national interest
- The Petitioner proposed to lead a nationwide initiative to develop and implement a standardized materials management mod